Given the amount of discusion on this site, I am wondering if we (HSBBW) could organize a mail in campaign or other form of protest to the NCAA? Has HSBBW ever done anything like that before? Julie - would something like this be ok with you?
08
quote:Originally posted by MTH:
And they will risk political repercussions for not giving scholarships to in state kids.
I'm not so sure about this.
With these new changes what does it mean for the players? Will schools not recruit players that don't have a 3.00 & 21 ACT for fear they will have academic problems? IMO, it will be quite interesting as to how the different staffs recruit. One thing that I do know is that college coaches will not relinquish scholarships if at all possible so they will probably do more research before they offer a player.
quote:Originally posted by TDad:
A thought occurred to me so I checked out the Rice Univ. website. Roster listed 38 players this year. The season is near an end so I checked out the Season Statistics to see how many were really playing. Noticed 15 position players and 13 pitchers ( 3 position players also pitched ) for a total of 28 players seeing any action at all. Six of the players either pitched less than 10 innings or had less than 20 ab's. Tentative conclusion is 22 players out of 38 make a significant contribution. How will the new rule affect this situation?
How many were red shirted players?
Another tidbit, any current players that get their release prior to August of this year can play next year without sitting out.
In regards to the example of Rice, I'm not sure if Rice is agood example or not, but there are 20 JR or SR's on the team which is alot, some are contributing some are not. There is 1 JR pitcher that pitched .2 IP for the season. Hypothectically lets assume he is injured and will probably not be a major contributer next year. Do you pat him on the back and wish him well and show him with the financial aid office is as you take his scholarship away??(going into his sr year its unlikely he'll transfer, so there won't be a negative effect on APR).
Rice also has a total of 8 transfers and 5 players that have redshirted in the past on the roster.
I don't know alot about the program (Rice has a APR of 949) but looking at the roster size and transfers in you would think their APR would be low. Could their APR actually drop since they have to reduce their roster size?
In regards to the example of Rice, I'm not sure if Rice is agood example or not, but there are 20 JR or SR's on the team which is alot, some are contributing some are not. There is 1 JR pitcher that pitched .2 IP for the season. Hypothectically lets assume he is injured and will probably not be a major contributer next year. Do you pat him on the back and wish him well and show him with the financial aid office is as you take his scholarship away??(going into his sr year its unlikely he'll transfer, so there won't be a negative effect on APR).
Rice also has a total of 8 transfers and 5 players that have redshirted in the past on the roster.
I don't know alot about the program (Rice has a APR of 949) but looking at the roster size and transfers in you would think their APR would be low. Could their APR actually drop since they have to reduce their roster size?
The thing I still don't understand is what happens if a player is released by a program.
The quote from the article: "Beginning in 2008, players on scholarship will be required to sit out a year after transfering" would indicate that if you're on a scholarship and still rostered, you have to sit out. But what if a player is released? He's no longer getting a scholarship, he's no longer on a roster. Does he still need to sit out a year because he was 'previously' on a scholarship? Does it mean a recruited walk-on can quit mid-year, transfer, and play immediately because he isn't receiving a scholarship even though he may be rostered?
If true, it would almost seem that players fortunate enough to have the financial means to cover their own college costs and are wholly focused on ending up somewhere they will play would retain the maximum flexibility by declining the scholarship and asking for a walkon spot to avoid getting handcuffed into "bad fits". At least for the first year or two until they know their fit in the program. Then take the scholarship for the soph or junior year once you have an established role. If the kid is a stud, he'll get playing time scholarship or no scholarship, and a coach would be very driven to lock up a key starter going into his soph or junior years by getting him to sign a scholarship agreement.
Overall I'd say this change tilts both coaches and players to use the walk-ons mostly for frosh entering the program and spend the bulk of the scholarship money on returning key sophs and juniors, and JC transfers entering the program as juniors. The frosh year then becomes a 'culling' year for everyone. A walk-on frosh can then transfer without sitting (if true); and the coach isn't penalized on the APR for the transfer of a non-scholarshipped player (if true).
The quote from the article: "Beginning in 2008, players on scholarship will be required to sit out a year after transfering" would indicate that if you're on a scholarship and still rostered, you have to sit out. But what if a player is released? He's no longer getting a scholarship, he's no longer on a roster. Does he still need to sit out a year because he was 'previously' on a scholarship? Does it mean a recruited walk-on can quit mid-year, transfer, and play immediately because he isn't receiving a scholarship even though he may be rostered?
If true, it would almost seem that players fortunate enough to have the financial means to cover their own college costs and are wholly focused on ending up somewhere they will play would retain the maximum flexibility by declining the scholarship and asking for a walkon spot to avoid getting handcuffed into "bad fits". At least for the first year or two until they know their fit in the program. Then take the scholarship for the soph or junior year once you have an established role. If the kid is a stud, he'll get playing time scholarship or no scholarship, and a coach would be very driven to lock up a key starter going into his soph or junior years by getting him to sign a scholarship agreement.
Overall I'd say this change tilts both coaches and players to use the walk-ons mostly for frosh entering the program and spend the bulk of the scholarship money on returning key sophs and juniors, and JC transfers entering the program as juniors. The frosh year then becomes a 'culling' year for everyone. A walk-on frosh can then transfer without sitting (if true); and the coach isn't penalized on the APR for the transfer of a non-scholarshipped player (if true).